Al convinced Bob to force Charlie to give Dasher to Elizabeth for Francis.

The questions involved are:
(1) Does your 'lang have morphological causatives?
(2) Can you causativize a ditransitive clause?
(3) Does your 'lang have benefactive applicatives?
(4) Can you applicativize a ditransitive clause?
(5) Can you applicativize a clause that's already been causativized, or causativize a clause that's already been applicativized?
(6) Can you causativize a clause that's already been causativized, having "double morphological causatives" as a result?
(7) Does your 'lang treat indirect causation ("persuade to") differently from direct causation ("force to")? If so, how?
(8 ) What's the maximum number of core arguments a single verb can have in your 'lang?_________________"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

Of course, this is one area where I'm making changes to the grammar... so I don't know if this would really be how I would say it._________________Tôśt drônén kókślán! Vón kríngénã Tôśt! Gâgén šníkél dér îwâ!

Thanks to Hemicomputer, Mr.Toast2, kyonides, and Strange_Magic.
I hope killerken and others will post again too._________________"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

That is probably inconsistent/wrong, but it's a weird sentence and I don't feel too bad about it. The change of Dasher to Dashvỉm, by the way, reflects the method of producing a doer of something from the verb: adding "m" to a verb (all of which end in -vỉ produced the related noun.[/b]_________________Speak: English, Spanish
Invent: Fidhaas
Learn: Polish
Awesome: Yes

Alo âac Fransiŝ Babĉ elatvỉ fâþ âacos ĉarlỉŝ Daŝvỉmĉ nolcuvỉ âacos Daŝvỉmŝ Elizabeþĉ hanvỉ.
Al(S) for Francis(R) Bob(P) to-convince past-indicator in-order-to Charlie(R) Dasher(P) to-force in-order-to Dasher(R) Elizabeth(P) to-give.
That is probably inconsistent/wrong, but it's a weird sentence and I don't feel too bad about it. The change of Dasher to Dashvỉm, by the way, reflects the method of producing a doer of something from the verb: adding "m" to a verb (all of which end in -vỉ produced the related noun.[/b]

Pretty interesting.

Can you respond to

I wrote:

The questions involved are:
(1) Does your 'lang have morphological causatives?
(2) Can you causativize a ditransitive clause?
(3) Does your 'lang have benefactive applicatives?
(4) Can you applicativize a ditransitive clause?
(5) Can you applicativize a clause that's already been causativized, or causativize a clause that's already been applicativized?
(6) Can you causativize a clause that's already been causativized, having "double morphological causatives" as a result?
(7) Does your 'lang treat indirect causation ("persuade to") differently from direct causation ("force to")? If so, how?
(8 ) What's the maximum number of core arguments a single verb can have in your 'lang?

To tell you the truth Eldin, I have no idea. I pretty much just test my language by translating stuff from English, so I don't really know if it can perform in every aspect necessary for a natural language. That sentence is the first time I've combined that many verbs into one statement, and the first time I've tried to base the action of one verb off of another. I totally invented "âacos" on the spot. I think it serves its purpose. I looked up the terms, and here's what I have for the questions:

1. Yes
2. Yes. Including âacos connects the two clauses.
3. I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I used to have a "beneficial" tense. But I never worked out exactly how it should work. I don't think it really applies here.
4. Don't know
5. Don't know.
6. Yes. Just insert âacos between each clause.
7. No.
8. Haven't thought about it. Probably should set a limit.

1. Yes
2. Yes. Including âacos connects the two clauses.
6. Yes. Just insert âacos between each clause.

While your translation is interesting anyway, your answer to the first question is not correct.

The "insert âacos between the two clauses" is causativization, but it is not morphological causativization.

For morphological causativization, you would need to change the shape of the verb somewhat by inflecting it -- whether that means applying a prefix or applying a suffix or applying some other kind of affix or using ablaut on the stem (changing the vowel of one of the syllables, probably the last or the first) or whatever. The new form of the verb would have to take as its Subject the "causer" or "instigator". What then happens to the "causee" or "agent-of-effect" depends on the language. It may get demoted to some specific slot in the verb's core, so that the verb's valency goes up by one; or it may get demoted all the way out of the core but remain an argument of the clause, although an oblique argument. In the latter circumstance there may be a specific case for demoted agents.

Some languages have morphological causativization for direct causation (e.g. "force") but not for indirect causation (e.g. "convince"). They use complement clauses (or maybe some other kind of subordinate clause) to show indirect causation; I might call this "syntactic causativization".

Some languages have morphological causativization for either kind of causation, direct or indirect.

Some languages have "syntactic" causativization for either kind of causation, direct or indirect.

Some languages use the same strategy for both direct causation and indirect causation.

Some languages use different strategies for direct causation than from indirect causation. It could be that both strategies are morphological; or that both strategies are "syntactic"; or that one is morphological and the other is syntactic.

When you use morphological causativization on a clause, and don't demote the agent-of-effect (the causee), you raise the valency. If the original clause was monovalent, the new one is bivalent; if the original was bivalent, the new one is trivalent; and if the original was trivalent, the new one is tetravalent.

That's why I asked about causativizing a ditransitive verb. The initial clause, "Charlie gives Dasher to Elizabeth", already has three core arguments; its subject (Charlie), its direct object (Dasher), and its indirect object (Elizabeth). If in your 'lang you can use a causativizing morphology on such a verb, and it doesn't demote one of the original core arguments, you'll wind up with a four-core-argument verb.

Some languages allow you to apply causativizing morphology to a verb that already has had such morphology applied to it. If neither the final causee nor the "middle agent" (the one who someone makes make someone do something) is demoted, this will raise the valency by two.

(I have read of at least one such language in which the verb agrees with the initial instigator and with the final agent, but does not agree in any way with the middle agent.)

For some such languages, one is not permitted to apply the same kind of causativizing morphology twice; for instance in Hindi the only way to have a double morphological causative, is for one of them to be direct and the other to be indirect. Thus, "Al convinced Bob to force Charlie to ..." or "Bob forced Al to convince Charlie to ..." could be accomodated in a one-verb clause, whose verb has been doubly-causativized (morphologically); but neither "Al convinced Bob to convince Charlie to ..." nor "Al forced Bob to force Charlie to ..." could be handled in just one verb. In Hindi, those last two clauses would have to be translated by a two-clause sentence, one clause being part of another.

But, in other languages, you can do all four of those clauses with just one verb, provided whatever Charlie is being made to do is simple enough.

"Applicativization" is a voice-like transformation on a verb, which promotes something to be the verb's (primary, usually) object.

Familiar voices, like "passivization", promote something to be its subject, or demote something to no longer be its subject.

"Applicative voices" leave the subject as-is, but promote something into the "object" slot; if that slot was already full, whatever was in it has to be demoted to somewhere.

Some grammarians call some things that happen in some languages, "dative applicativization"; that means that something is promoted into the secondary-object (indirect object?) slot.

Among kinds of applicativization is "dative movement", popular in such major languages as English. This is what you call it when a ditransitive verb is modified so that its indirect object moves up into its direct-object slot.

If the thing promoted into the object slot (whether primary-object or secondary-object) is the beneficiary, then that's called "benefactive applicativization".

Edit: "Bake me a cake" is maybe (probably?) an example of benefactive applicativization in English. It means "bake a cake for me". "Me" is more in the benefactive case than in the dative case in "bake me a cake"; it would be more dative in "give me a cake".

Here, I'm concerned whether there's morphology on the verb to show that it has been applicativized (some languages that applicativize don't change the shape of the verb); and, if there is, whether it also shows that it was benefactive applicativization (some languages don't change the verb's shape differently for benefactive applicativization than for, say, instrumental applicativization or locative applicativization).

In "Charlie gives Dasher to Elizabeth for Francis", "Francis" is the beneficiary; Charlie (or, maybe, Al or Bob) does what s/he does to affect Francis; the intended effect on Francis is what the agent regards as the more salient effect the action might have.

In "benefactive applicativization", the beneficiary always becomes a core-argument of the verb -- in fact, it always becomes an object of the verb, though perhaps a direct or primary object (morphosyntactically speaking, not semantically speaking), or perhaps a secondary object.
One question I'm interested in is, whether that means some object of the original verb has to be demoted out of the core, to become an oblique argument; or whether instead the verb's valency can be raised by one.

Edit: "Bake me a cake" is perhaps an example of benefactive applicativization in English. It means "bake a cake for me".

In many circumstances, causers and beneficiaries are semantically rather similar, so some languages causativize by benefactive applicativization rather than moving the causer into the subject slot, or some languages treat beneficiaries as causers and move them into the causer slot and use causativization instead of benefactive applicativization.

But if your language has both valency-raising (e.g. non-demoting) morphological causativization and valency-raising (e.g. non-demoting) applicativization, you can see that if you causativize a verb that's already been applicativized, ,or applicativize a verb that's already been causativized, it's possible to raise the verb's valency by two; monovalent verbs become trivalent, bivalent verbs become tetravalent.

In that case, "Al convinced Charlie to ... for Francis" or "Bob forced Charlie to ... for Francis" could be handled with a single verb, provided the original verb Charlie was doing was simple enough.

So, that's why I asked the question I asked. I started with an already-trivalent, ditransitive clause, then gave three reasons to raise the valency by one. If your language allows tetravalent verbs, you might have been able to handle any one of them -- "Al convinced" or "Bob forced" or "for Francis" -- in a single verb. But what would you do if your language didn't allow tetravalent verbs? You'd have to kick one of "Charlie" or "Dasher" or "Francis" out of the core; or go to a two-tiered, biclausal structure.

OK, but, what if the language allows you to add a causer or a beneficiary to the core -- what happens when you try to add another causer, or add both a causer and a beneficiary? If your language allows tetravalent clauses, but not higher valencies, then you'd still be OK (could still do it all with only one verb) if the root clause was only bivalent or monovalent; but if the root was ditransitive, you'd wind up having five arguments, and one of them would have to be demoted to an oblique; or you'd have to go to a two-tiered, biclausal structure.

If you can causativize twice and applicativize, (morphologically, using non-demoting morphology), then you'll raise the valency by three. If your language allows tetravalent (e.g. tritransitive) clauses, then, if the root clause was monovalent (e.g. intransitive), that won't exceed the limit and it can all be done with one verb in a simple clause. But if the root verb is bivalent or has higher valency; or if the language allows trivalent clauses but not tetravalent clauses; then you'll need a biclausal construction or to demote one of the arguments out of the core or both.

A lot of that doesn't seem to apply to Killerken's conlang, since the causativization strategy it uses is non-morphological in the first place._________________"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

The âacos method was jury-rigged in the first place. Thanks to your explanation, I will review it, and see if maybe I can apply the information to make a neater or more lucid method. Thanks!_________________Speak: English, Spanish
Invent: Fidhaas
Learn: Polish
Awesome: Yes

The âacos method was jury-rigged in the first place. Thanks to your explanation, I will review it, and see if maybe I can apply the information to make a neater or more lucid method. Thanks!

It's common for languages to express causation via use of subordinate clauses instead of changing the shape of the verb; I thought your 'lang's "âacos method" was just fine.
I asked how to gloss that complicated sentence in your conlang, and you answered; I thought that was responsive.
I had some other questions, but they were for everyone, not for just you in particular.

Basically I was wondering:
* Does your 'lang have any valency-raising operations?
If so:
** when can they be used, and when can't they be used?
** can any of them be applied twice?
** what are they?
*** for instance, do you have one or more forms of morphological causatives?
*** or, do you have one or more forms of morphological applicatives?

* Does your 'lang have any valency-reducing operations?
If so:
** when can they be used, and when can't they be used?
** can any of them be applied twice? (For instance in both Hindi and Turkish it is possible to re-passivize a clause that's already passive.)
** what are they?

* If your lang has trivalent clauses, are any of them already that way in "untransformed", "unmarked", "root" verbforms? Or must all of them be created by valency-raising operations on clauses that are already bivalent?

(All natlangs have both monovalent and bivalent verb-roots. Most also have trivalent verb-roots, but in most natlangs such verb-roots are a minority compared to the monovalent and bivalent verb-roots. Some languages have no trivalent verbs at all. Some that do have trivalent verbs have no trivalent verb-roots; all trivalent verbs are the result of valency-raising operations applied to bivalent verbs.)

* If your lang has tetravalent clauses, are any of them already that way in "untransformed", "unmarked", "root" verbforms? Or must all of them be created by valency-raising operations on clauses that are already trivalent?

(Many natlangs have tetravalent verbs; and many of them have verbroots that are already tetravalent in "root", "untransformed", "unmarked" form. But in most such languages, there are only a tiny number of such verbroots, and most tetravalent verbs come from applying valency-raising transformations to trivalent verbs. For some languages, though they have tetravalent verbs, there are no tetravalent verb-roots;all tetravalent verbs in those langauges are made by valency-raising operations on trivalent verbs. Some natlangs don't allow tetravalent verbs.)

* If your lang has 0-valent, "impersonal" clauses -- "clauses without participants" --, are any of them already that way in "untransformed", "unmarked", "root" verbforms? Or must all of them be created by valency-reducing operations on clauses that are already monovalent? (For instance in Turkish it's possible to passivize an intransitive clause, or a passive clause, resulting in a clause without participants. These are "impersonal clauses".)

Although many natlangs have "0-valent" impersonal clauses, TTBOMK all of them are derived by valency-reducing operations on monovalent clauses. But I could be wrong, or just under-informed._________________"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission

Last edited by eldin raigmore on Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:04 pm; edited 3 times in total

I think it's impossible to translate this sentence in TŠL, for it to still make any sense. Can that happen?
At least, I can't see, how I can do it with the system, because currently there can only be one verb in a sentence, with the other one (if there is one), turning into a gerund. And then the datives and beneficials... it's way too complicated.